On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Patrick Gundlach wrote:
Am 11.03.2010 um 14:20 schrieb Norbert Preining:
I don't want to answer the question before knowing the exact question.
As far as I understand the "problem": we need version controlled modules. Why? Who would go back in time? The module authors? Other users? The minimals-distribution-Mojca?
Actaully, I am not sure. For example, I personally store all (OK, most) of my modules on github. Whenever I want to upload something to garden, it is usually as easy as ctxtools --tpmmake module and upload the zip to contextgarden. As a module writer, I do not want to do the last step each time. For me, it will be easier to just create a branch "garden" (or something) on my github repo, fill in some details on contextgarden, and let something at the server take care of syncing from my git repo. Other authors use mercurial, svn, bazaar, you name it. I do not expect garden to support all of these VCs. Actually, there is not too big a difference between them, and there are easy ways of going from one VC -> svn -> another VC. So, I will be happy if contextgarden just pulls data from the appropriate branch of my VC stored at a public hosting site.
What interface do these people need? How often do they need access to the SCM?
As a context user, I do not care about VC. For installing/uninstalling, both minimals and TL work perfectly fine. As a power user, when something goes wrong, I like to look at the diffs to see what changed. There is alreay a git repo for the context files, but, IMO, it is horribly broken. The branches are, well not branches but shoots grafted on top of each other with frequent pruing and regrafting. But that is a discussion for another thread.
Should we get rid of the files on the modules section?
Personally, I only use the file section for browsing. So, even if the files section redirects me to github/bitbucket/whatever, I do not really care. Aditya